Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Tag: Global Warming

  • Man Made Climate Change

    Man made Global Warming has taken us by storm (pun intended).  The media is literally inundated with it.  Take these particular headlines in the last few weeks for example:

    Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers – The New York Times : May 13th 2014

    U.S. Military Plans Policy Shift in Response to Anticipated National Security Threats Caused by Climate Change – US News & World Report : May 16th 2014

    Military Bases Brace for Slow-Motion War With Climate Change – NBC News : June 8th 2014

    U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears – Live Science : June 12th 2014

    Terry McAuliffe Says Global Warming Will Submerge Norfolk Naval Base – No More Cocktails : April 11th 2014

    I could literally fill this post with links from recent articles in the past weeks on Climate Change/Global Warming.  I believe it would be fair to say that it is a currently hot topic (pun intended) given the amount of publishing space devoted to it.

    Given the Science of Climate Change, we (the population of the world) have every reason to be dubious.  To begin with the climate models have been decidedly proven to be educated guesses at best.  And with good reason.  It is an amazingly complex problem.  Consider the lengths that the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) went through in order to verify weather for a Space Shuttle launch.  And when you understand the granularity of the models (4 km grids in large scale and 1.33 km grids in small scale), you begin to understand the incredible complexity of data collection and processing.  Secondly, because of the complex nature of the problem, we really don’t have a sensor grid that allows for large earth predictive modeling.  The model is data starved, across all boundaries (hence the fudge factor in the computer code).  Third, it takes a considerable amount of processing power to run those models.  Consider the Earth Simulator, built by Japan at a cost of 7.2 billion Yen ( ~$7 million US dollars) and operational in March of 2002 (now 12 years old).  With weather processing power purported by these types of machines, you would think we would have up to the minute weather forecasting at every square mile of earth someone was standing on, but that is still not the case, and the weather forecasting we do have, for the areas we have them for, is still flawed to some degree.  And lastly, the incredible assumptions that are made within the models themselves are difficult to find any credibility with.  In just the current set of articles, the experts predict sea levels will rise somewhere between 1.5 and 7.5 feet over the next 100 years.  That is quite a spread.  Furthermore it is an incredibly long incubation period.

    The bottom line is we don’t know.  We just can’t say what the weather/climate/or climatic conditions are going to be in 50 years let alone 100 years.  Furthermore we have no idea how the model is going to change over that period of time or what factors will come into play that will have an affect upon it.  Experts have been predicting different sets of outcomes for years now.  And each time the actual conditions do not match up to their predictions, they simply change the model to match the conditions and proceed forward.  Well I could do that, and I’m not even the expert.

    We then have this claim that all of this Climate Change we are observing is Man Made.  And the question then becomes can human activity on the face of the Earth cause the weather to change?

    A Theistic answer might be Yes and No.  Yes, in the sense that it is in direct response to man’s condition that weather changes upon the Earth have been effected.  And No, in the sense that it is not mankind who controls the weather, but rather God.

    A Theist would accept the premise that God created a perfect system to begin with.  Every facet of weather on this Earth was in perfect balance and naturally worked together to the good of the entire system.  This would mean that the temperature was perfect at every point on the Earth, that moisture content was perfect, that oxygen content was perfect, that harmful radiation from the Sun was blocked, that wind, heat, cold, and other factors were all perfectly balanced within the system.  And that this system then supported the exact perfect environment for plant, animal, and human growth on the planet.  And that all of these would naturally thrive in such a system.

    A Christian however, then accepts the premise that mankind’s Sin then altered the system.  Or more precisely, that because of man’s Sin, and the subsequent steps taken by the Creator in response to that Sin, allowed the original (and perfect) system to break down and to enter into a state of entropy.  And that is what we see the result of in the world today.

    God caused the flood of Noah’s time in response to Sin upon the face of the Earth.  So it was not man per se that caused a climatic climate change, but rather God’s actions in response to man’s Sin.  And this breakdown has then led to the natural phenomenon we view around us today.  Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Monsoons, Typhoons, Lightening storms, dust storms, desert heat, and artic colds.  Even the Ice Age itself.  All are results of the breakdown of the original system, that was first allowed, and set in motion by God.

    Man Made Global Warming?  I accept the premise only as far as man’s Sin is a direct result of all the effects of conditions we observe in the world today.  But to consider that it is mankind, and not God, that controls or affects the weather on the planet is a fallacy.

    I will agree with our Climate Scientists on one small point however.  Revelation 11:6 predicts that one day, for a period of time, it will not rain, and water will turn to blood.  One may assume from this that fish will die, thirst will abound, and food plants will be sparse.  And I’m positive that the Global Warming crowd will stand up and proclaim “We TOLD you so!”

    Problem is, it was already written to be so over 2 thousand years ago.  You cannot outwit, second guess, or alter God in anything you do.

     

     

  • Interpreting Data

    I have the opportunity to work with medium to large data sets on the job.  And the data sets are very significant to the customer.  So we need to be careful with the data.  However I am a pretty impatient person and sometimes I want to skip ahead in processing based upon assumptions about the data.  Every once in awhile I make a correct assumption, however, by far, most of the time I end up being wrong.  Fortunately the great people I work with don’t mind a little trial and error.  They are, however, quick to point out the errors in processing and the flaws in the assumptions.  We need to be careful, methodical, and detailed oriented when dealing with significant data sets.  And we need to constantly challenge our results and our analysis of the data.

    Imagine my surprise then when a topic such as Global Climate Change comes up.

    Before I even get to the discussion, I just cannot let this ridiculous terminology stand without giving it some challenge.  When former Vice President of the United States Al Gore wrote his book Earth In The Balance (published in June of 1992) the only thing we knew of man made weather change was Global Warming.  Now, some 22 years later, with little more data than before, and actually with data supporting changes other than Global Warming, the terminology has changed.  Now we use Global Climate Change.  This is just plain disingenuous and false science to boot.  If I ever observed data contrary to my theory (which is what has happened with our Weather Scientists) and I simply changed the name of my theory in order to make the data support my foregone conclusions, I would be laughed out of the room and banned from the community.  This is not what Scientist do.  But we have become so goofy with our terminology and our rush to validate our own fanatical fairy tales, we have actually squashed the two terms together (as if that makes any sense at all): NASA brings the two terms together to conveniently cover all possible cases.  Now, thanks to creative Scientific Theory naming, we can make all data fit either term and thus our fantasy Theory holds no matter what the data says.

    But back to the data.  So when this discussion comes up at work, I am faced with the usual plethora of Global Climate Change supporters and this confuses me.  I ask about this and I am told that there is this study or that study and that the data is pretty conclusive.  And I am even more confused.  Lets put this into perspective, the same Scientist that are crying about Global Climate Change will tell us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  We have actually collected and recorded about 100 years of climate data during human history.  The vast majority of that is simply temperature data.  And the first 25 to maybe even 50 years of that was taken on equipment nowhere near the precision of todays instruments and compared to todays readings might be considered to be in the ball park, but not exactly exact.  That is about 100 years of data for a 4.5 billion year old system (using their supplied Earth age mind you) of which 1/4 to 1/2 is probably suspect.  Let me put this into perspective for you: Earth Age Vs Weather DataSee the thin red line on the end?  The one with the arrow pointing to it?  That is the 100 years of weather data we have collected over the supposed life span of the Earth.  That timeline is to scale (well to scale as best as your computer screen will render at this resolution anyway).  It is almost ludicrous that so little data could support so big a theory and actually tie it into the effects of mankind over less than the given time period.

    So I can just hear the but, but, but’s rolling in now.  We have all of this other data!  What about the ice core samples?  Doesn’t the data from the ice cores give us a greater history of the Earths climate changes?  Huh, No.  They do not.  Everything we believe we know from ice core samples is theory and conjecture.  Furthermore we’ve apparently run off and studied ice cores with Global Climate Change in mind.  We specifically LOOK to bend the evidence in favor of the theory.  Once again, in my world this would be called junk science.

    And lastly, good scientific theory is meant to be challenged, debated and defended.  It is meant to be peer reviewed.  But by far (do a few WEB searches yourself if you need supporting evidence) the folks that support Global Climate Change shout down any dissenters time, and time, and time, and time again.  I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, ridicule and shouting over your challenger as a tactic to defending your theories and data was NOT considered good scientific practice.  And yet that is exactly what is happening today.  Once again, junk science.

    So why do the really, really smart people that I work with and others around the world just automatically buy into the whole Global Climate Change agenda?  I believe it stems from laziness.  Not that they are lazy in their ways, it is just that most individuals are far too busy with their every day lives to be worried about checking data reported to them.  And so they become lazy, and as a result somewhat trusting of what they are told (Why Al Gore has it in his book so it must be true).  Thus they don’t take the time to analyze the data on their own.

    I believe if they did, there would be a BIG difference in what we see and know and believe about the story of Global Climate Change.

    Data is important in our lives.  But don’t let the INTERPRETATION of the data in your life lead you down a path that one day you might regret.